arxiv:quant-ph/ v3 17 Jul 2005

Transcription

1 Quantitative measures of entanglement in pair coherent states arxiv:quant-ph/ v3 17 Jul 2005 G. S. Agarwal 1 and Asoka Biswas 2 1 Department of Physics, Oklahoma state University, Stillwater, OK , USA 2 Physical Research Laboratory, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad , India agirish@okstate.edu, asoka@prl.ernet.in Abstract. The pair coherent states for a two-mode radiation field are known to belong to a family of states with non-gaussian wave function. The nature of quantum entanglement between the two modes and some features of non-classicality are studied for such states. The existing criteria for inseparability are examined in the context of pair coherent states. PACS numbers: Mn, Dv On leave of absence from Physical Research Laboratory, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India

2 Quantitative measures of entanglement in pair coherent states 2 1. Introduction Entanglement in continuous variables has been of great interest since the celebrated paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) [1] who constructed a two-particle state which was strongly entangled both in position and momentum spaces. The EPR state has been the subject of many discussions on the nonlocality of quantum mechanics. It turns out that the EPR state can be physically realized in a high gain parametric amplifier. Thisopened upthepossibility ofavariety ofnew experiments [2,3, 4, 5]using entanglement in continuous variables. The Wigner function for such states is Gaussian in position and momentum variables [6]. The Gaussian states are very special in the sense that the information on the higher order correlations can be extracted from second order correlations. The criteria for entanglement these states has been formulated in terms of second order correlations between position and momentum variables [7, 8]. Mancini et al. [9] derived an equivalent set of criteria. A great advantage of these inequalities is that the transpose criteria has been translated into something which is directly measurable. In this paper we focus our attention on the entangled character of a family of non-gaussian states, viz., the pair coherent states. These states are entangled since the expression for pair coherent states is already in Schmidt form. We examine its entanglement character in terms of the Peres-Horodecki criteria. We calculate explicitly the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of the density matrix and show that some of these are negative. We also present results on the correlation entropy and linear entropy. To setup an experiment to quantitatively measure entanglement, one can think of quasi-probability distribution functions, viz. the Glauber-Sudarshan P-function, Q-function, and the Wigner function. We study the relationship between the nonclassicality the P-function of the state and entanglement. It is known that if P-function of the state is well-behaved, then the state is separable. We study the P-function for the pair coherent state to show the entangled nature of the state. we also check the entanglement in pair coherent state using the inequalities for second order moments. The organization of this paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the family of bipartite non-gaussian states of radiation field. We describe their properties briefly. In Sec. III, we investigate the inseparability of the pair coherent states in light of Peres-Horodecki criterion and von Neumann entropies. Later we discuss the relation between entanglement and non-classicality of P-function. Finally we study the existing separability inequality to detect entanglement in the pair coherent state. 2. Pair coherent state: An entangled non-gaussian state The simplest examples of non-gaussian states of the field are, say, the single photon states. Other examples could be states generated by excitations on a Gaussian state [10, 11]. The state which has been extensively studied for its nonclassical properties and violation of Bell inequalities [12, 13] is the pair coherent state [14]. A pair coherent

3 Quantitative measures of entanglement in pair coherent states 3 Figure 1. Contour plot of the quadrature distribution P(x a,x b ) for the pair coherent state for ζ = 1. state ζ,q is the state of a two-mode radiation field [14] with the following properties: ab ζ,q = ζ ζ,q, (1a) (a a b b) ζ,q = q ζ,q, (1b) where a and b are the annihilation operators associated with two modes, ζ is a complex number, and q is the degeneracy parameter. The pair coherent state for q = 0 (corresponding to equal photon number in both the modes) is given by ζ n ζ,0 = N 0 n,n, (2) n! where N 0 = 1/ I 0 (2 ζ ) and I 0 (2 ζ ) is the modified Bessel function of order zero. The coordinate space wave function is given by x a,x b ζ,0 = N 0 = N 0 ζ n n! x a n x b n ζ n 1 H n (x a )H n (x b ) exp n! π 2 n n! [ x2 a +x2 b 2 ], (3) where x a n is a harmonic oscillator wave function given in terms of the Hermite polynomial as x a n = ( 2 n n! π ) 1/2 Hn (x a )e x2 a /2. (4) It is clear from the expression (3) that the wave function of the pair coherent state is non-gaussian. We have shown the quadrature distribution P(x a,x b ) = x a,x b ζ,0 2 of the state (3) in Figure 1. The distribution reflects the entanglement present in the state. Note that the pair coherent state can be obtained by projecting the two-mode coherent state α,β = e ( α 2 + β 2 )/2 α n β m n,m (5) n!m! n,m=0

4 Quantitative measures of entanglement in pair coherent states 4 onto a space with a fixed difference of the number photons in two modes. The well known squeezed vacuum state with Gaussian wave function is given by ζ TP = 1 ζ 2 ζ n n,n. (6) Note that the expansion coefficients are different in (2) where the coefficients decrease quickly with increase in n!. 3. Inseparability of the Pair Coherent State In this section we quantitatively study the entanglement in pair coherent state. Note that the state (2) has an obvious form of Schmidt decomposition. This reflects the fact that this state is an entangled state. In the next subsections, we examine the other criteria to give an estimate of its entanglement Peres-Horodecki inseparability criteria The Peres-Horodecki inseparability criterion [15] is known to be necessary and sufficient for the (2 2) and (2 3) dimensional states, but to be only sufficient for any higher dimensional states. This criterion states that if the partial transpose of a bipartite density matrix has at least one negative eigenvalue, then the state becomes inseparable. The density matrix ρ corresponding to the state ζ, 0 (which is a infinite dimensional state) can be written as ( )( ) ρ = C nn n,n Cmm m,m, (7) m=0 ζ where C mm = N m 0. Hence the partial transpose of ρ is given by m! ρ PT = C nn Cmm n,m m,n. (8) n,m=0 One can now calculate the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the matrix ρ PT as follows: Let us start with the following set of two Hermitian conjugate terms for n m in the above equation C nn C mm n,m m,n +C mm C nn m,n n,m. (9) Diagonalizing the above block of the matrix ρ PT we find the following eigenvalues: 1 ζ 2n λ nn = I 0 (2 ζ )(n!), n 2 λ ± 1 ζ n+m nm = ±, n m. (10) I 0 (2 ζ ) n!m! and the corresponding eigenfunctions n,n and ( n,m ± e iθ m,n )/ 2, where θ is the relative phase of the amplitudes C nn and C mm and is defined by e iθ = C nn C mm / C nn C mm. Clearly the matrix ρ PT has several negative eigenvalues. Hence according to the Peres-Horodecki criterion, the pair coherent state is an inseparable

5 Quantitative measures of entanglement in pair coherent states I corr ζ Figure 2. Variation of the correlation entropy of the pair coherent state (solid line) and the squeezed state (dashed line) with ζ. For large values of ζ the correlation entropy varies linearly with ζ. state. Note that if the phase of the parameter ζ is random, then the state becomes separable, as then terms corresponding to different values of n and m drop out of the double summation in (8) Correlation entropy Correlation entropy of a bipartite system consisting of subsystems a and b is given by [16] I corr = S a +S b S ab, (11) where S k is the von Neumann entropy of the system k. If a and b are uncorrelated (separable), then I corr vanishes. Now for any bipartite pure state, S ab is zero. We have calculated S a,b for the pair coherent state as S a = S b = ζ 2n I 0 (2 ζ )n! 2log 2 ( ζ 2n I 0 (2 ζ )n! 2 ). (12) We plot the correlation entropy (11) for the pair coherent state with ζ in Figure 2. The correlation entropy for the pair coherent state remains non-zero for all values of ζ which signifies that the state is inseparable (entangled) for all ζ. For smaller values of ζ, the entropy increases slowly; but at larger values of ζ, it saturates. Note that the squeezed vacuum state (6) is a very special kind of Gaussian non-classical state, entanglement properties of which have been much studied in literature [3]. For a better understanding of the inseparability of the pair coherent state, we have compared the correlation entropies of the pair coherent state and of the squeezed vacuum state in Figure 2. Clearly the correlation entropy of the squeezed vacuum state grows much The eigenvalues of the partial transpose of the density matrix for the squeezed vacuum state are also given by (10) with n! and m! replaced by unity.

6 Quantitative measures of entanglement in pair coherent states I lin ζ Figure 3. Variation of the linear entropy I lin for pair coherent state (solid line) and squeezed vacuum state (dashed line) with ζ. faster than that of the pair coherent state. This is because, as ζ approaches to unity, the squeezed vacuum state becomes much more incoherent than the pair coherent state. At ζ = 1 the squeezed vacuum state becomes completely random, as all the possible states of the either mode then become equally probable. It is well-known that the correlation entropy of a system with all basis states equally probable is 2log 2 N, where N is the number of possible basis states of the system. For squeezed vacuum state, as N, the correlation entropy diverges for ζ = 1. On the other hand, in case of pair coherent state, the picture is different at ζ = 1. In this case the states with lower occupation number become more probable than the states with higher occupation number. Thus the correlation entropy for the pair coherent state remains less than that of the squeezed vacuum state for ζ approaching unity, suggesting that the pair coherent state remains much more coherent than the squeezed vacuum Linear entropy We further calculate the linear entropy of the pair coherent state, which is given by I lin = 1 Tr(ρ 2 k), where ρ k is the reduced density matrix of the subsystem k. For a pure state density matrix ρ, I lin vanishes as Tr(ρ 2 ) = 1. But for an entangled state, ρ k does not have the form of a pure state density matrix. Thus, any non-zero I lin provides signature of entanglement present in the state. Note further that the linear entropy is closely related to the entanglement measure in terms of Schmidt number [17]. For a pair coherent state, the linear entropy is given by I lin = 1 1 I 0 (2 ζ ) 2 ζ 4n n! 4. (13) We show the variation of the quantity I lin with ζ in Figure 3. Clearly for any nonzero ζ, I lin becomes non-zero and positive implying entanglement in the pair coherent

7 Quantitative measures of entanglement in pair coherent states <( u) 2 ><( v) 2 > ζ Figure 4. Variation of product of the variances of the joint position and momentum of two subsystems in a pair coherent state (solid line) and in a two-mode squeezed vacuum state (dashed line) with the squeezing parameter ζ, for φ = π and m = 1. The product remains less than unity for all non-zero ζ <( u) 2 >+<( v) 2 > ζ Figure 5. Variation of total variance in the EPR-like variables u and v with ζ for pair coherent state (solid line) and squeezed vacuum state (dashed line) for m = 1. We have chosen φ = π. state. For ζ 0.4, I lin 0.25, i.e., Tr(ρ 2 k ) is close to unity. This implies that the state represented by ρ k is more like a pure state than a mixed state. On the other hand, for ζ = 1, I lin 0.6, which means that ρ k represents more like a mixed state than a pure state. Thus the state (2) is more entangled. Further we have plotted the linear entropy of the squeezed vacuum state (6) in Figure 3. Clearly for small ζ the linear entropy of both the states show similar behavior. But at larger values of ζ, linear entropy of squeezed vacuum state is more than the pair coherent state, i.e., the degree of mixedness of the pair coherent state remains lower than the squeezed vacuum state for larger values of ζ.

8 Quantitative measures of entanglement in pair coherent states Entanglement and non-classicality of the P function So far we have investigated the entanglement in pair coherent state in terms of Peres- Horodecki inseparability criterion and various entropies. However all these criteria are not possible to verify in experiments. We will now the study the non-classicality of P- function for the pair-coherent state as P-function of a density matrix can be measured in experiments. For bipartite systems, the two-mode density matrix can be written in terms of the diagonal coherent state representation as ρ = d 2 αd 2 βp(α,α ;β,β ) α,β α,β. (14) It is known that if the P-function has non-classical character, then the state is entangled. We examine the inseparability of the pair-coherent state from the point of view of the non-classicality of the P-function. The Glauber-Sudarshan P-distribution function gives a quasi-probability distribution in phase space, which can assume negative and singular values for non-classical fields. There is another distribution function called Q-function which is related to the P-function by Q(α,α ;β,β ) = 1 π 2 α,β ρ α,β = 1 π 2 P(γ,γ ;δ,δ )e γ α 2 e δ β 2 d 2 γd 2 δ, (15) which is always positive. Note that if the function P(γ; δ) were like classical probability distribution, then Q(α;β) > 0 α,β. However if Q is zero, then P must become at least negative (referring to nonclassicality of the state) in some parts. Hence the exact zeroes of the Q-function are also a signature for the non-classicality of the field. In order to see the non-classicality of the pair coherent state, we examine the structure of the Q function. The Q function for the pair coherent state can be calculated as Q(α,α ;β,β 1 ) = + β 2) I π 2 I 0 (2 ζ ) e ( α 2 0 (2 ζα β ) 2. (16) This function has zeroes only if α and β are out of phase for real positive ζ, and if 2 ζ α β = z 0, where z 0 are the exact zeroes of the Bessel function J 0 (z). The smallest few values of z 0 are , 5.52, , , etc. Existence of these zeroes proves that the pair-coherent state is a non-classical state. However it is worth mentioning that, the notion that, if the P-function of a state is not well-behaved, then the state in inseparable, is not always true. For example, for a two-mode separable Fock state n, m, the P-function is not at all well-behaved. This motivates us to investigate some alternative inseparability criteria, which can be verified in experiments. We will show that existing inseparability inequalities are quite useful in detecting entanglement in non-gaussian state like (2) in experiments, albeit under certain condition Separability inequalities Duan et al. [7] and Simon [8] independently have derived the separability criterion of a bipartite continuous-variable system in terms of the second-order correlations. This

9 Quantitative measures of entanglement in pair coherent states 9 criterion states that if a state is separable, then the uncertainties in a pair of EPR-like operators u and v satisfy, where M = ( u) 2 + ( v) 2 m m 2, (17) u = m x a + 1 m x b, v = m p a 1 m p b, (18a) (18b) for any arbitrary nonzero real number m. Here x k = (k+k )/ 2 and p k = (k k )/i 2 (k = a,b) are the position and momentum operators for the subsystem k satisfying the commutation relation [x k,p k ] = iδ kk. Conversely, violation of this criterion provides a sufficient condition for inseparability of states, albeit with a lower bound m2 1 M < m m 2 m2, (19) which for m = ±1, reads as 0 M < 2. (20) For a bipartite Gaussian state, the criterion (17) is also sufficient for separability. Equivalent necessary and sufficient condition for separability of Gaussian states have been derived by Englert and Wodkiewicz [18] using density operator formalism. They have shown that the positivity of the partial transposition and P-representability of the separable Gaussian states are closely related. These criteria have been experimentally verified via the interaction of linearly polarized field with cold atoms [19], in atomic ensembles [20], and with squeezed light fields [21, 22]. Mancini et al. [9] have shown that separability of a state leads to the following uncertainties in a pair of EPR-like variables M x = ( u) 2 ( v) 2 1, m = 1, (21) where u = x a + x b and v = p a p b. Violation of this inequality provides a sufficient criterion of inseparability in Gaussian states. We will now discuss the validity of the criterion (21) in case of a pair coherent state which is a non-gaussian state. We calculate the uncertainties ( u) 2 and ( v) 2 (for m = 1) for the pair coherent state ζ,0. We find the averages x a +x b = 0 and (x a +x b ) 2 = ζ (1+a a+b b+ab+a b ) ζ = 1+2 ζ I 1(2 ζ ) +2 ζ cosφ. (22) I 0 (2 ζ ) Here I 1 (2ζ) is the modified Bessel function of order one and ζ = ζ e iφ. Thus ( u) 2 = u 2 u 2 = (x a +x b ) 2. In a similar way, one can calculate the variance ( v) 2 which is found to be equal to ( u) 2. In Figure 4, we have shown the variation of product ( u) 2 ( v) 2 with ζ. Clearly, the inequality (21) is violated for all ζ. We can thus infer that the pair coherent state is an inseparable state.

10 Quantitative measures of entanglement in pair coherent states 10 Now we will discuss whether the criterion [Equation (19)] is applicable for the pair coherent state. The total variance M = ( u) 2 + ( v) 2 can be calculated as M = ( m ) +2 ( m ) ζ I 1(2 ζ ) m 2 m 2 I 0 (2 ζ ) + 4 m ζ cosφ. (23) m We show the variation of the above quantity with ζ in Figure 5 for φ = π. The figure shows that total variance remains less than m for all ζ. Thus the inequality m 2 (19) is satisfied for the pair coherent state under the condition (sign of m)(sign of cosφ) < 0. (24) Thus the criterion (19) is sufficient for inseparability of the pair-coherent state only if the above condition is satisfied. We have also compared the degree of violation of (21) and (19) of the pair-coherent state with that of the squeezed vacuum state (6) in Figure 4 and Figure 5. It shows that the criteria (21) and (19) are violated more by the squeezed vacuum state for larger ζ. Thus the degree of inseparability is more for the squeezed vacuum state at larger ζ. This is due to the fact that the expansion coefficients in the pair coherent state [see Equation (2)] decrease quickly with the increase of n!. 4. Conclusions In conclusions, we have studied the inseparability of a special family of non-classical states, called the pair coherent states which are non-gaussian in nature. We confirmed the inseparability of pair coherent states in the light of Peres-Horodecki criteria and various entropies. We then demonstrated that the existing inseparability criterion (19) based on second order correlation, is applicable to these kind of non-gaussian states only under certain constraints. References [1] Einstein A, Podolsky B and Rosen N 1935 Phys. Rev [2] Ou Z Y, Kimble H J and Peng K C 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett [3] Howell J C, Bennink R S, Bentley S J and Boyd R W 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett [4] Furusawa A, Sorensen J L, Braunstein S L, Fuchs C A, Kimble H J and Polzik E S 1998 Science [5] Kim M S, Lee J and Munro W J 2002 Phys. Rev. A [6] For properties of Gaussian Wigner functions, see Agarwal G S 1971 Phys. Rev. A Agarwal G S 1987 J. Mod. Opt Agarwal G S and Adam G 1988 Phys. Rev. A Agarwal G S and Adam G 1989 Phys. Rev. A [7] Duan L-M, Giedke G, Cirac J I and Zoller P 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett [8] Simon R 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett [9] Mancini S, Giovannetti V, Vitali D and Tombesi P 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett

11 Quantitative measures of entanglement in pair coherent states 11 [10] Agarwal G S and Tara K 1991 Phys. Rev. A [11] Agarwal G S, Puri R R and Singh R P 1997 Phys. Rev. A [12] Gilchrist A, Deuar P and Reid M D 1999 Phys. Rev. A [13] Tara K and Agarwal G S 1994 Phys. Rev. A [14] Agarwal G S 1986 Phys. Rev. Lett Agarwal G S 1988 J. Opt. Soc. Am. B [15] Peres A 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett M. Horodecki M, Horodecki P and Horodecki R 1996 Phys. Lett. A Horodecki P 1997 Phys. Lett. A [16] Huang H and Agarwal G S 1994 Phys. Rev. A [17] Law C K, Walmsley I A and Eberly J H 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett Grobe R, Rzazewski K and Eberly J H 1994 J. Phys. B Chan K W, Law C K and Eberly J H 2003 Phys. Rev. A [18] Englert B-G and Wódkiewicz K 2002 Phys. Rev. A [19] Josse V, Dantan A, Pinard M and Giacobino E 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett [20] Julsgaard B, Kozhekin A and Polzik E S 2001 Nature [21] Bowen W P, Treps N, Schnabel R and Lam P K 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett [22] Silberhorn C, Lam P K, Weiss O, Konig F, Korolkova N and Leuchs G 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett Korolkova N, Leuchs G, Loudon R, Ralph T C and Silberhorn C 2002 Phys. Rev. A